After all, what would life be without any struggle whatsoever?
I’m not here to be a megalomaniac…
I just make the plan man. And then I submit the plan.
It’s neither up to you or me to determine a persons perfect.
If you think suffering forever is super-cool, just reflect the plan as it currently is. My perfect is different than yours.
I had to make a plan to account for every possible type of being, including you.
I just make the plan and submit it.
The choice is everyone’s combined.
I’ve also heard psychologists saying that the key difference between the two is that sociopaths are impulsive whereas psychopaths are calculated. I’ve also heard them saying that the key difference between the two is that psychopaths have no conscience whereas sociopaths do. Who is correct? Are they talking about the same concept at all?
It is said that a man by the name of Karl Binbaum invented the term “sociopath”.
scholarpedia.org/article/Psychopathy
Interestingly, the term “psychopathy” initially meant what the term itself suggests: to be a psychopath meant to be mentally ill. I think, though I might be wrong, as I didn’t do much research, that what Binbaum did is invent another word for the same concept with the aim to emphasis that mental ailments are almost always, if not always, caused by societal factors.
Yeah Magnus,
You got it right.
It’s just a classification of nature vs. nurture.
Or maybe that what marks the aberration is maladaption to social order rather than to psychic order. That the body actually studied by medical psychology is society and not the psyche.
Next up: How to detect a “condition”.
@Pedro: Yep, I wondered about that too. I am trying to find his original thoughts on the matter to see if that’s what he meant. Not much so far.
Psychologists seem to be divided on the issue. Either way, what’s certain is that both psychopathy and sociopathy refer to some sort of mental illness; and to be mentally ill means to be irrational. After all, that’s why noone wants to see themselves as either of those things. By definition, these terms refer to something that is bad. So just because someone chooses to harm others because it gives him pleasure does not mean he’s a psychopath or a sociopath. His choice must be an irrational one. That’s why, whenever you point at someone for having fun harming other living beings (e.g. slaughtering animals), you have to prove that what they are doing is irrational.
But things are actually far worse than that. You actually said . . .
So if someone disagrees that all of existence is evil, they are a sociopath? You have a lot more to prove here.
“ So if someone disagrees that all of existence is evil, they are a sociopath? You have a lot more to prove here.”
I don’t have anything to prove.
Everyone on earth knows there’s a kitten starving to death somewhere.
So when you see them saying, “life is good”, “what a great day to be alive” or such other mundanities …
You know you’ve met a sociopath. Instantly.
Ontologically, the scintillates of difference between gross sadism and violation of axceedence to approval to such, is tantamount to the very thin difference between a sadistic intent and the desire to a masochistic need to be punished to pursue the desire to exist.
Remember Jesus noted that those who love life are destened toloose it, but those who hate it can be admitted to heaven.
That extremely subtle difference mag be denoted
due to the increasing need to designate largely forgotten edicts of wwarning.
As far as the accelerating progression of the simulated difference between general interpersonal agression/ sadism goes, that may clear the confusion between a logical contradiction, ( which I am not making , and. fallacious reduction, which is not intensional)
This is the gross generalization that we are not equipped to make, as of yet.
Oh, yes you do.
Nah.
Umm… yeah … Magnus ?
We’re dealing with definitional logic now.
Unless you want to redefine words. I’m right.
You are not.
Ech, decinitoinal logic is all that we are equipped to go by, as of yet. There are no measurable intervening variables between that and some consequence, intended or not. To come to conclusions now, could result in an inadverden’t judgement .
Now the burden of proof is on you.
I made my argument with definitions.
You’re making your counter argument without argument because you’re afraid of the abyss.
What it might actually mean to you if you accept definitions.
I already told Ecmandu that in order for someone who’s deriving pleasure from inflicting pain to be classified as either sociopath or psychopath they must be irrational. He ignores the dimension of rationality and merely focuses on what they are doing. “Hey look, someone is having pleasure even though a kitten is suffering on the other side of the planet. By definition, they are either a sociopath or a psychopath!” They aren’t. That’s not a sufficient condition for someone to be classified as suffering from antisocial personality disorder.
Not true at all. You did almost nothing – as usual. I had to read your mind – as usual. I did that and I countered what I perceived to be your train of thought. What was your response? Nothing.
That sort of delusion keeps you making progress on this board. You are very quick to conclude that other people are afraid of you and your arguments. It’s silly considering that literally everyone sees you as a clown – literally a clown.
You don’t realize that sociopaths and psychopaths are by definition irrational people. It’s not enough for them to enjoy inflicting pain on others. They must be doing it as a consequence of an irrational decision.
Actually it is. I’m a hyper empath, I’m not even on the continuum of sociopathy. It’s like that autism spectrum. I’m not on the spectrum. I don’t exist in either spectrum.
I feel the pain and joy of everything. And understand this, there’s a lot more pain than joy.
If you ever meet a severely autistic person and realize that they have a mental handicap… you’ll understand what it’s like for a hyper empath to meet you.
Antipaths don’t feel good if anyone feels good.
It is not. ASPD is a type of mental illness and every mental illness is a type of irrationality – by definition. Thus, in order for someone to be diagnosed with ASPD, it’s not enough for them to be comfortable with inflicting pain on others. It’s not a sufficient condition. Such an act must be a consequence of irrational decision. Most people who kill animals in order to survive do not have ASPD even though they are comfortable doing it. That’s because their actions aren’t irrational. You are completely ignoring the dimension of rationality and merely focusing on whether you’re a nice guy or a mean guy.
And what makes you think that’s a good thing? What makes you think it’s a good thing to cry each time you see someone suffering? How exactly is that a good thing? How does that help you achieve your goals in life?